This opinion is subject to
further editing and modification.The
final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No. 2013AP732-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN:

IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anne
E. Brown, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Anne E. Brown,

Respondent.

FILED

MAY 17, 2013

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.Attorney's
license revoked.

¶1PER CURIAM. Attorney Anne E. Brown has filed a
petition for consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19.[1]Attorney Brown was admitted to the practice
of law in Wisconsin in 1984.She was
privately reprimanded in 2006 and again in 2007.In 2012 her license to practice law was
suspended for two years as a result of various trust account violations and
failing to cooperate with the investigation of a grievance filed with the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown, 2012 WI 51, 340 Wis.2d527, 814 N.W.2d172.Her license remains suspended.

¶2Attorney Brown is currently the subject of six additional OLR
investigations into her conduct.The
Preliminary Review Committee found cause to proceed on 26 counts of misconduct
arising out of the six investigations.The alleged misconduct includes instances where Attorney Brown sought
and received advanced fees, did not follow the advanced fee alternatives in SCR
20:1.15(b)(4m), did little or nothing for her clients and discontinued contact
with them, failed to provide written fee agreements as required, failed to
respond to requests for accountings of advanced fees, failed to refund unearned
advanced fees, failed to timely file documents in a divorce case, and failed to
timely respond to the OLR's investigative inquiries.

¶3Attorney Brown admits that she cannot successfully defend against
the allegations of the grievance investigations.The OLR supports Attorney Brown's petition
for consensual license revocation.The
OLR asks that Attorney Brown be ordered to make restitution in favor of five
clients, and to the extent that the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection (the Fund) has reimbursed any of those clients, then the Fund
should be so reimbursed.The OLR does
not seek an assessment of costs.

¶4We determine that the petition for consensual license revocation
should be granted and that Attorney Brown's license to practice law should be
revoked effective the date of this order.

¶5IT IS
ORDERED that the license of Anne E. Brown to practice law in Wisconsin is
revoked effective the date of this order.

¶6IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Anne E. Brown shall comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has
been revoked, to the extent she has not already done so.

¶7IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Anne E. Brown
shall make restitution to the following clients.To the extent that the State Bar of Wisconsin
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection has reimbursed any client at the time
restitution is paid, then the Fund shall be so reimbursed:

In favor of Client
J.G.:$2,500

In favor of Client
D.W.:$6,042.96

In favor of Client
J.B.:$2,500

In favor of Client
K.W.:$2,500

In favor of the Fund
(Client K.T.):$1,850

¶8IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation shall
advise the court if there has not been full compliance with all conditions of
this order.

[1]SCR 22.19 states as
follows:Petition for consensual license
revocation.

(1) An
attorney who is the subject of an investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme court a petition for the
revocation by consent or his or her license to practice law.

(2) The
petition shall state that the petitioner cannot successfully defend against the
allegations of misconduct.

(3) If
a complaint has not been filed, the petition shall be filed in the supreme
court and shall include the director's summary of the misconduct allegations
being investigated.Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall file in the supreme
court a recommendation on the petition.Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend the time for
filing a recommendation.

(4) If
a complaint has been filed, the petition shall be filed in the supreme court
and served on the director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has been
assigned.Within 20 days after the
filing of the petition, the director shall file in the supreme court a response
in support of or in opposition to the petition and serve a copy on the
referee.Upon a showing of good cause,
the supreme court may extend the time for filing a response.The referee shall file a report and
recommendation on the petition in the supreme court within 30 days after
receipt of the director's response.

(5) The
supreme court shall grant the petition and revoke the petitioner's license to
practice law or deny the petition and remand the matter to the director or to
the referee for further proceedings.